Attacking Clinton

She my girl.. Bill C. — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 03:28:19 GMT

They attacked Hillary ? Well daaaa she's the leader with the most experience. Thats why she leads in all national polls. hillaryclinton.com

Attacking Clinton

diane — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 03:30:26 GMT

Even if sick, I thought that shot by Obama was one of the great ones tonight. I'm surprised everyone else forgot about it and says Obama never went after her.
He took a shot aim square between the eyes and her expression of stone with cheeks red was priceless.

Attacking Clinton

Jimmy Sanborn, Cherokee, Oklahoma — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 03:37:44 GMT

I thought the atack of her immediately after the debate by Chris Mathers was terrible. If he goes on the attack it should be wide open to everyone. He is just trying to stir things rather then find common ground. It is people like him that give media a bad name. Msnbc I enjoyed the debate. Waited around long enough for the Chris Mathers VERDICT that Hillary Clinton won the debate. Then when trash started coming out off his devel ran mouth I gladly turned the channel. Will be real carful before I turn you back on. or visit your web site. Media needs to shead itself from people that speak negative Broadcast the news Stop at YOUR opinion., but you can welcome others. Froom a Mass Comm. Major. Chris Mathers is a divider. NO room for DIVIDER's

Attacking Clinton

Chris J New Carrollton, MD — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 03:48:51 GMT

I think it was great. She needs to be pressured. She needs to have the same treatment but then also, she needs to be held accountable. face it, she was a first lady under her husband and took on an issue that failed from the get go, health care. will she run the US, if elected as she ran the health care reform she tried?

Attacking Clinton

Aaryck, Scottsdale, Arizona — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 04:00:13 GMT

Senator Obama is better than her and far beyond her to have to resort to attacking her but soon he will show the country what she is. She spoke 3 times tonight showing her arrogance as if she were president. Yes you must act like you are the president if you want to convince others that you are worthy of being the president but that does not mean that you have to display arrogance while doing it. Obama was right, we need to change politics and she continues to represent the arrogant cancerous politics in Washington that we need to leave behind. Our country can only gain back it's reputation as a true world leader by only putting someone in power who leads by example. Barack leads by being the person he wants his country to be. Barack will do what it takes to bring this country, it's congress and it's senate together and that's why people are chosing Barack.

Attacking Clinton

Student Voter, Tampa FL — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 04:02:07 GMT

Partition? Are we really so arrogant to believe that we can dictate to a nation, that because of our failed foreign policy we have determined to divide a sovereign nation? Iraq is not a social experiment - it can not be the freedoms we enjoy that the radicals hate but our insistence on imposing our economic and political will on others.
Our democracy is a work in progress that has spanned generations; was it really realistic to believe that we could build a new democratic nation in just a few years? And by the way were are all of those Republicans that denounced nation building when I need them.

Attacking Clinton

Jan Browne — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 04:05:32 GMT

Joe Biden is the best of the candidates. He is the smartest and most honest of all of the candidates and has the best policies for the Country in the future. Go Biden 2008!

Attacking Clinton

Zack Mullen — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 04:18:49 GMT

I though the press also ATTACKED Hillary!!!!god they are so sexist!!!!Tims questions for Hillary were very personal and attacking!much different than the questions he asked the other canidates!!and could Chris Mathews be anymore sexist!!!god its so GLARING when you watch the press!!!BUT Hillary won again the line of the nite was from her"my husband isnt standing here"!!right back in Tims face good for you Hillary!!!

Attacking Clinton

Michael, Bismarck, ND — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 04:22:51 GMT

Good debate. Russert always a tough questioner. They all went after Hill. She took it all in stride. Hillary, you have my vote! www.hillaryclinton.com

Attacking Clinton

Aaryck, Scottsdale, Arizona — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 04:23:18 GMT

It's obvious that Obama is the more moderate of all the candidates very well balanced in his questions and his decisions. He's wise not to start attacking when he knows he's a person of strong character and grounded ethics. It's clear that as Obama's message spreads that he gains the support of Republicans and Democrats alike and that's the type of President that we need in a divisive time like this. Hillary does not have what it takes to bring both parties together to lead this country in the direction where it needs to go. If she does she will try to lead this country by force similar to Bush. "...I'm sorry Senator you're no Bill Clinton"

Attacking Clinton

Briggs Camungol, Jr., Manila, Philippines — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 04:33:32 GMT

Hilary Clinton really makes the grade. Among the candidates, she is the one with the widest exposure on the jobs of the Presidency which she got during the term of her husband. Her experience in healthcare during that time surely will allow her to put up the additional basic requirements she needs to come out with an ideal program acceptable to everybody. The other candidates has nothing in this area. Just 0.0.

Attacking Clinton

Paul — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 04:34:57 GMT

I am glad that she was exposed. She is so well rehearsed. I got to givre credit to her for that but I dont want to see devious politics again. PUT AN END TO IT and vote in a fresh face such as OBAMA. OBAMA/ EDWARDS for 08.
Tim Russert was excellent. He caught her off guard with reg to the Alqiada No 3 question and donations question. It revealed who she is.

Attacking Clinton

Gina Williams Derby, Kansas — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 04:35:05 GMT

I got the feeling the Chris Mathews does not like Clinton.

Attacking Clinton

Em Timmons, Fallon, NV — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 04:36:42 GMT

SHAME on you Chris Mathers. You were a bad boy. Do smart women (Hillary) intimidate you? OK..OK..Just asking, but shame on you!

Attacking Clinton

Sheri Moon Boston MA — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 04:36:45 GMT

God this debate was bogus!!it was like one big bashing Hillary session!!they are all so jealous of her even the press!!She is the brightest and best,they all know it,and it drives them crazy because she is a woman!!She was the poineer for being the first one really to go for universal health care!! and I agree Chris Mathews and Tim Russert are beyond SEXIST!!!!!!

Attacking Clinton

Marcelle, Nevada — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 04:41:57 GMT

SHAME on you Chris Mathers. You were a bad boy. Do smart women (Hillary) intimidate you? OK..OK..Just asking, but shame on you!

Attacking Clinton

J M Edelman — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 04:42:18 GMT

I think Russell was out of line asking the last question requiring a religeous answer. I think that they should all be condemned for responding to a religeous htought in a political discussion. To me Russell implied athat we are a Christion nation.

Attacking Clinton

Mark, Chicago — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 05:01:08 GMT

I think the star of the evening was Tim Russert. Gosh he was on and exposed Hillary for being a question dodger. She'll wear any hat to get the vote. I will not vote for the Hillary machine. Edwards was winning early on then he gut too chummy with the height schtick. Obama stayed above the fray. Gravel was hilarious as usual. Biden is an intruiging dark horse...too late though.

Attacking Clinton

Alex, NY, NY — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 05:28:58 GMT

Why do people think that being First Lady counts as experience? Obama was right to attack the one memorable thing she did, because it was such a spectactular failure. We do need change. It doesn't have to be Obama. It better not be Giuliani, who would be A Fate Worse Than Bush.

Attacking Clinton

Brent Burk, Schertz, Texas — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 05:46:52 GMT

Love that Mike Gravel exposed Hilary once again for her hypocrisy.

Attacking Clinton

Nick F, Berkeley, CA — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 06:25:15 GMT

Despite all the attacks, Hillary will remain the frontrunner and emerge the nominee. And it's time for Kucinich and Gravel to bow out - esp. Gravel. They sound so ridiculous that it isn't even funny anymore. They're now just taking up space and time away from more viable candidates.

Attacking Clinton

Ben, Grinnell, IA — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 06:29:55 GMT

I have to second diane's comment that Obama's one shot at Clinton was the best of the night as it exposed some of Clinton's greatest weaknesses. First, it is a great example of her lack of openness and second it shows that her experience isn't necessarily competent experience.

We need a competent President, and I don't think Clinton can offer that.

Attacking Clinton

David, Los Angeles, Calif. — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 06:54:35 GMT

Chris Matthews was awful tonight, ruining the debate with his childish vendetta. MSNBC should not allow him to comment on Hillary Clinton if he cannot remain reasonable and somewhat objective. We want to her insightful analysis, not personal attacks.

With the exception of Matthews, the debate was great. Biden went way up in my book. Obama is still good. And Hillary was strong, as usual, especially in the way she withstood some withering attacks.

Attacking Clinton

Bonnie Jean Burris Colorado Springs, Co. — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 07:35:04 GMT

There is no problem when the cantidates attack one another. That is what debated is about. But Tim Russert argued with them and that is not the job of a moderator. If he doesn't like the way they do or do not answer questions, that's too bad. As far as Chris Mathews is concerned, it's been clear for a long time that the idea of a woman president enrages him and he does nothing but talk about her constantly and his comments are always negative. Get over it Mr. Mathews.

Attacking Clinton

RJ — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 09:48:33 GMT

H. Clinton is not presidency material. I'm somewhat opposed to Obama but him rather than her. She is not leading, that's only what the media wants everyone to think. Don't vote for her or our Country the US will be in the same shape her family, marriage and overall character is. Jumbled up. We need strong leaders, people may not like Bush in some sense but other do. The soldiers in Iraq are needed where they are. Pull them out now and the US is subject to be the attack from all foreign countries. Somethings are not just what they seem on the face, we have to consider all the aspects. The war may not be what we want but it's already in motion and not to run is not an option for us or the soldiers. Ask them, get your view straight from the people who actually are in it. Not from someone who is a complete failure. Don't Vote Clinton! You will have more confusion in America than we could even imagine.

Attacking Clinton

Jaye — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 09:55:34 GMT

Count me in, Jimmy Sanborn! AND others I know.

We are through allowing media into our homes to argue their points and opinions, which they have assummed matters to us.

We Are Turning Them Off and using that time, instead of being wasted wondering which is worse--the grown adults rudely arguing over one another or the coming commercials--we are Turning Them Off and discussing among ourselves, sharing on message boards and chats and phone calls, comparing with each other what candidates said, finding out what we have researched--if their claims jive with the reality of their records--sharing 'live' voters' opinions, forming our own. Time, which is so precious these days, much better spent.

Now we are getting to know each other better as we get to know our candidates better, forming OUR OWN OPINIONS.

Debates are good, though not strictly candid. Interviews are good, though preapproved.
We need more of the CANDIDATES.
More discussion from the CANDIDATES.
More accurate reporting on the CANDIDATES.

Why are supposed news shows wasting time with reports on vague histories of some crimes, exploited happenings of vague stars...looks like, if they wanted their ratings to go up they would have the CANDIDATES on their shows, and research reports on the CANDIDATES for their shows.. THIS IS ELECTION SEASON. It's as though they are being paid to air NOTHING in-between candidates' Commercial sound-bites/camera shots, and the Opinionators own ranting amongst themselves.

Candidates should make the media work for their money. Give voters more info to make good choices. NOT STAR-SHOT commercial ads.

Then, media boast among themselves (while we watch) how "the media is working" in such and such an area where they have blitzed the poor folks with phonee-balonee commercials some candidate/s have paid highly for, which tell us basicly nothing...Discounting voters' opinions the candidate/s themselves encouraged in that area.

Our remote is getting a lot more use these days!

We Turn The Channel...Turn It Off!

Attacking Clinton

wise — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 10:20:59 GMT

i missed the debate only saw clips. why cant these major news site like cnn bnc cbs and abc have the debate in its entirety on their web sites. this is the person we are going to choose to run this country for cry sakes !edwards is still too inexperienced. he looks like a guy with out a mission. ok. now if i was running for president heres what i would do about our troops and iraq. i would have my team investigate all the possible things that could go wrong in iraq with a troop pull out. and then put systems in order to counter acts that. not just how do we prevent a civil war etc, but all the things.its a big job, but the presidency is a big job.we need someone as sharp as bill clinton to get us out of this mess, so i suggest proposing a law to allow bill clinton to serve an emergency term of office !

Attacking Clinton

jack wirsterng — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 10:50:05 GMT

Lady, and use that term loosely, you & your whoremunger hushand need to grt a lile, co back to little rock, or what ever rock you came out of.[ whit warter] you Clntions never finsh anything. noe even your husband. I am a Woman,& i am as one you do not belong.Or your 1st husband. Clean up the mess you and he maid.

Attacking Clinton

Kevin Zent, Greenfield, Ohio — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 11:50:54 GMT

Biden is right - I fear Clinton is too polarizing to actually win the general election.

Attacking Clinton

Robert, Concord, NH — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 12:11:47 GMT

A very poor display of supposed candidates. Edwards was the winner of this debate, he took a stand and was very clear and concise, showing possible leadership abilities. Clinton appeared to take for granted that she had already won and her comments about her husband were a sign of inexperiance: ''I will have to ask my husband about that...'' ''My husband is not by my side right now'' ( What would happen if one of the men said ''I have to ask my wife?" ) Obama was weak, showed clearly he has no experiance to lead a country, though spoke fairly well, he jumped around and lost concentration one too many times. None were impressive. hence why I awill not vote Democrat. Hence why taking for granted anything is a sure sign of loss. Leaving Iraq completely will never happen, but to flip flop one too many times shows instability of character.

Attacking Clinton

Susan Griffin — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 12:38:55 GMT

No comments about Gravelle's comments on yesterday's vote in the senate about Iran? He hit Hillary and Obama right between the eyes with his remarks about her giving good old George her support again and Obama not showing up for the vote. Isn't it time that the Democrats show up to place their votes and come together to say NO to George! I too am ashamed of our politicians - I wish Gravelle was younger - he could have gotten quite a few votes.

Attacking Clinton

Susan Griffin — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 12:41:10 GMT

Another comment - equal time for each candidate. I was beginning to feel that I was watching the Hillary and Obama show last night - I expected much more from Tim Russert. His questions were great - but hold them to the time - turn off the mike after 30 seconds.

Attacking Clinton

A A, Chicago, Illinois — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 12:42:36 GMT

I enjoyed the debate. Although I support Hillary
Clinton, I thought it was appropriate for the other candidates to pressure Clinton. Edwards was the only other candidate to stand out against Clinton. (Not enough to change my mind, but kudos to him for giving it his all).

The rest of the candidates need to step aside, especially Obama, if they are going to give Edwards a chance to compete in this race against Hillary.

Biden did a good job, however, none of the candidates seem to appear presidential. Edwards and Clinton are the ones that stand out from the crowd - especially Clinton.

Tim Russerts line of questioning was amazing - he was prepared and really hit each candidate hard - not just Clinton - but all. Kudos to Russert for doing his homework. I think Hillary's comback that 'well, he isn't standing here' was awesome. The comment was obviously meant to stir her & it didn't stick...she was truly presidential and commanding in her quick-witted response.

Chris Matthews was utterly transparent during his post commentary. It is clear to me that he is a biased journalist. When he was interviewing Joe Biden and Chris Dodd, it was clear that he, not only had an agenda - knock Clinton - but that he wouldn't allow his guests to speak. Matthews handled the post coverage inappropriately. Nobody really cares what he feels about Clinton - it is obvious, and I actually had to TURN THE CHANNEL...it was disgusting.

So, in the end, THUMBS UP FOR CLINTON, EDWARDS, BIDEN, AND TIM RUSSERT.

BIG THUMBS DOWN FOR THE OTHER 'BLOW-HARD' 2ND TIER CANDIDATES - BARACK OBAMA (don't come to the game if you are sick), and BIG BIG BIG - THUMBS DOWN FOR CHRIS MATTHEWS.

Attacking Clinton

Willy Brown — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 12:50:19 GMT

They, the Clintons have an shadey past that no one in the Liberal media will question in fear of the Clinton war machine coming down on them. Media whay are you afraid of the Clintoons?

Attacking Clinton

Elaine Griffin — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 12:55:37 GMT

Why should Americans trust a woman who did not even have enough sense to leave an abusive, cheating husband for 30 years while raising a young daughter?...she was literally spit on all those years and took it!!...all the while CONNING the public with that phoney smile...and proclaiming how wonderful her husband is...are you kidding??..and all for political power! What kind of woman would accept that behavior from any man?... and what huge decisions will she be capable of making for our country, other than those for her own gain? Wake up, Clinton supporters... please think who these people REALLY are...and what you are doing ...before it is too late!!

Attacking Clinton

Elaine Griffin, PSL, Fla — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 12:58:17 GMT

Attacking Clinton

Elaine Griffin, PSL, Fla — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 12:59:58 GMT

Attacking Clinton

pab, ozark, al — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 13:42:04 GMT

Barrack was sick, he was a bit quite, yet he still held his own, we THE PEOPLE want the candidates to make points without slinging mud at each other. The only people who want mudsling is YOU the MEDIA. Hill did not answer any questions, she side steped all Russert direct questions. And whats this stuff about not discussing private talks with her husband? If what they talk about affects public policy, its not private. B. Obama and J. Edwards you hang tough, we the people don't want more Billary. They are being pushed dcown our thoarts. And they leave a HUGE LUMP.

Attacking Clinton

TMK, B-ham MI — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 13:56:50 GMT

The whole country has known from the beginning that it is Hillary's destiny to be the first female president. Being first lady has given her the previous white house experience that being the first female president a women can't go wrong having. It is time...and she is the one!

Attacking Clinton

Lole J. Charles, San Antonio, TX — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:11:34 GMT

I thoroughly enjoyed watching the debate last night. I feel that Senator Clinton was fantastic! She might have not answered some questions, but I believe that her tactics of not directly answering questions is better. I'd rather hear them say, "I can't commit myself right now" rather than promising Americans things they will not be able to keep. John Edwards did very well also. He has wonderful ideas, but somehow he is not reaching Americans. Unfortunately, at times he reminds me of a child getting back at Senator Clinton. In all honesty, Senator Joe Biden should be our second highest presidential candidate. He really tells it like it is! Of course, Dennis K and Mike Gravel are the most honest of all and make more sense than all of them, but they might as well stop spending campaign money and help other hopeful Presidential Democratic candidates. I feel that all of these candidates are good friends to each other and respect each other.

As for Chris Matthews, I don't understand why he is sooo ANGRY at the Clintons. A few weeks back, he was so complimentary to Senator Clinton; now it seems that he so in favor of the Edwards. What is it with him? Have the Clintons rejected his invitations? I like Chris Matthews, but I have noticed that he does not give his guests enought opportunity to express their opinions; he always interrupts them. I have also noticed that he does more so with his female commentators. It's like he really isn't interested in hearing their opinions. As a matter of fact, I think he is more interested in hearing his own opinions. He really bashed Senator Clinton last night. Mr. Matthews, what is your problem? Keep your opinions to yourself and allow your guests to give theirs. Isn't that the reason you invite them to your show? Keep up your attitude and you will be losing many, many viewers!! Good luck

Attacking Clinton

OC Duke — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:31:30 GMT

I get a kick out of these so called debates. They all say that they are for Bi-partisanship and the need of the country to pull together, THEN....they all rip President Bush unmercifully. Attack the policys NOT the Presidency. Secondly I would like to ask the feminist out there. The college news paper that had "Taser this F*** Bush, how would they respond to that very same remark if Hillary or any other woman was the target of that insane remark.

Attacking Clinton

Jon, Indy, IN — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:31:55 GMT

The only way I will vote Republican in 2008 is if Sen. Clinton is the Democratic nominee.

I wonder if all the Sen. Clinton supporters on this website have the same IP address?

Attacking Clinton

cab, Small Town, Ohio — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:36:23 GMT

I am a Democrat, but I hate Hillary Clinton. She is a hawk just like Bush. She just voted for a Senate measure that all but hands Bush the reins to take the country to war with Iran. She will continue this "war on terror" in Bush style, even though it isn't working.

She waffles on the war. She wants to "leave some combat forces" long-term to battle al-Qaeda, but swears she will "bring the troops home". This is just an excuse to have it both ways. This is just what Chris Matthews was talking about! Why won't she answer questions?!

I also favor Joe Biden.

Attacking Clinton

CHICANA AE CHICAGO, il — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:56:58 GMT

THE US WANTS OUT OF THE WAR IN IRAQ..WHEN THE TOPIC WAS BROUGHT UP..I NOTICED A MEMORABLE LACKKKKKKKKKK OF LEADERSHIP WAS THE TOP 3 CONTENDERS CLINTON, BARACK, AND I MAYBE EDWARDS TOO..NONE COMMITTED TO REMOVING TROOPS. I ACTUALLY LOVED GRAVEL'S DIRECT APPROACH AT CALLING CLINTON A PRACTICAL SELL-OUT FOR VOTING TO GO TO WAR WITH IRAN...I LIKE EVERYONE ELSE EXCEPT THE FIRST 3 EDWARDS IS OKAY..RICHARDSON, BIDEN,,,GRAVEL ALL COOL.

Attacking Clinton

nene, Dallas, Tx — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 15:07:42 GMT

I did not make it to Chris Mathews remarks -- Tim Russert was enough for me -- I think he thought it was a 2 hour Meet The Press........

Attacking Clinton

Iowa health care worker — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 15:12:03 GMT

"Obama knocked Clinton on her failed health care policy during her husband's administration, telling her the reason it was lonely is because she "closed the door to Republicans," who did want to reform health care."

Actually if Clinton only excluded the GOP it might have had a chance at passing, but she excluded the Democratic leadership, and resorted to slime tactics to pressure Democrats to support her plan that she refused them to have any hand at drafting. Hillary Clinton is responsible for our current health care system, because as Russert pointed out her 07 plan is nearly identical to former Senator Chaffee's plan in 93, but she would have no part of it. It was her plan or no plan. Great leadership. Thanks a lot!

Attacking Clinton

cab, Delaware, Ohio — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 15:13:23 GMT

Attacking Clinton

RUTH BATTING, TAMPA, FL — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 15:17:34 GMT

Everyone who is talking about Hilary and her health care program during President Clinton's tenure seem to forget that the Republicans were in control of both houses and if she had presented the most amazing health care reform every during that timeframe, it still would not have passed. Isn't it amazing that over a decade has passed and now what she proposed then and was chastised for is now being proposed again via the other candidates and she is being blamed again. What is the problem? Is it because it is coming out of a woman's mouth and not a man's. I feel that the country is indeed ready for a female president and Hillary, like it or not is the one to lead this country back to progress, solidarity and most of all respect for our country being brought back.

GO SENATOR CLINTON, YOU HAVE MY VOTE!!!!!

Attacking Clinton

Diane, Chicago — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 15:17:51 GMT

"Clinton... comments about her husband were a sign of inexperiance: ''I will have to ask my husband about that...'' ''My husband is not by my side right now'' ( What would happen if one of the men said ''I have to ask my wife?" )"

That was amazing as a trial attorney it drives me absolutely nuts when a female client tells me she has to ask her husband and get back to me, I have never in 21+ years of practice had a male tell me he needed to talk to his wife before making a decision.

What a joke! And yet all these HRC supporters keep talking about her great strength. Strong women, let alone strong candidates, don't need to ask their spouse.

Attacking Clinton

cab, Delaware, Ohio — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 15:19:35 GMT

I am a Democrat, but I don't care for Hillary Clinton. She is a hawk just like Bush. She just voted for a Senate measure that all but hands Bush the reins to take the country to war with Iran. She will continue this "war on terror" in Bush style, even though it isn't working.

She waffles on the war. She wants to "leave some combat forces" long-term to battle al-Qaeda, but swears she will "bring the troops home". This is just an excuse to have it both ways. This is just what Chris Matthews was talking about! Why won't she answer questions?!

I also favor Joe Biden.

Attacking Clinton

Victor from NJ — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 16:17:14 GMT

Elaine Griffin, from Fla (above) is wrong, she sounds just like those extreme FEMINIST & ULTRA CONSERVATIVES, who attack Clinton and seek quick & easy solutions to very deep problems. Yes women are capable of doing good or even better decisions than men. Someone needs to tell you and the rest of the democratic candidates that BRAINS do not have sex. They seem to work better in the person who learns how to use them over the years.

History has plenty examples of women that had made world-wide impacts in the political & social life such as: Eva Peron in Argentina, Margaret Thatcher in England, Gandhi in India, Mother Teresa, Lady Diana in England, etc and why NOT? Hillary Clinton in USA.

Attacking her private life decisions is a very low, cheap & desperate way of opposing the change that our country desperately needs. If anything senator Clinton has shown to all women in America & the world that she has integrity, that she values highly the traditional values of having families, with parents (father & mother), raising & educating their kids, she has thought us that marriage is a serious commitment in which partners agreed and sword to support each other in good and BAD. It requires hard work and NOT just cheap talk.

To all those social-conservatives also called Christians, and who so blindly supported George Bush re-election because of his anti-gay campaign and later were so largely disappointed, now you have a woman with high moral convictions, who is NOT afraid to be critiqued in public for making though decisions like offering forgiveness and understanding to preserve her family integrity. I hope that you will support her and her new ideas for the White House, unless of course, you are still attached to those ultra conservative ideas of Mr. Bush that have done so much damage to our country and its image world-wide.

To me Hillary Clinton describes a person with character and integrity who takes commitment seriously and will not disappoint the American people. I am a 38-year old electrical engineer from New Jersey who is also a practicing Catholic. My whole family will gladly support Mrs. Clinton for president. What a better candidate than this woman. Let’s NOT be afraid of the change.

Attacking Clinton

John Fleisher, Santa Barbara, ca — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 17:06:08 GMT

I believe the reason Hillary gets the "too polarizing" tag is because the republican propaganda machine has been demonizing her and ramming that concept down our throats since 1991. If you say it enough times, it becomes the truth, right?
But when I hear her speak and listen to her words, she knows her stuff. She does come across as more presidential than all the other candidates (democrat or republican) and isn't that what we want in a president? I will say I'm not happy with her vote regarding Iran, however, I believe if she were president she wouldn't do something stupid like Bush has done.

Attacking Clinton

RJ — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 17:21:23 GMT

I beleive that the comeback to Hilary from the other canidates speak for themselves. Most Gentlemen in America are raised with Family Values. Do not speak to a lady unjustly. Most Do Not! Get real folks, Ms. Clinton knows this. Those comments about I'll have to ask my husband is a joke. Did you ask your husband to run for senate? Do you ask him for permission to run for presidency. Ok I believe in submissiveness but when it comes to your Job your Husband isn't doing it. You are the one and it isn't him the country or the US wants to be ran by or you for that matter. Go Away Hilary!

Attacking Clinton

RJ — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 17:21:41 GMT

Attacking Clinton

RJ — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 17:22:00 GMT

Attacking Clinton

Marge F Marshfield, WI — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 17:24:21 GMT

Why are Russert, Matthews, Todd and Carlson and their Newsweek buddies begging the other candidates to attack Clinton? Where were all of you when someone should have been pressing Bush before the previous elections? Is this what MSNBC is all about now? The other FOX?? Your antagonism toward Clinton is putting the whole focus on her and taking away from the other candidates. Matthew's "interview" with Biden and Dodd was mostly an invitation to them to join in his harangue against Clinton and very little about them. We need a presidential candidate who clearly understands the problems we face, has some concrete ideas how to solve them, is firm, strong, not spouting empty platitudes or making rash statements that will only come back to haunt this nation. Now you guys get out of the way and let us make up our own minds!

Attacking Clinton

Mike Walsh,Santa Cruz,CA. — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 17:41:54 GMT

What a joke this party is...........................................

Attacking Clinton

cab, Delaware, Ohio — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 18:22:02 GMT

People say that Hillary Clinton is for change, but I don't see it, at least not on the most important issues facing us: Iran, the "war on terror" and Iraq. If all of this stuff continues to eat up all of our money, then there won't be any funding available for health care reform or any other things here at home. And on those issues she sounds like she will keep up the "status quo", along with the Republicans!

Her vote with Lieberman just about made me THROW UP! We won't have to worry about how "well" Hillary would "probably" handle the situation in Iran if she hands Bush a war on a platter before January 2009. We will be stuck there too, and probably with a draft and gasoline rations to boot!

On the "War on Terrorism" she will keep the status quo as well. Terrorism is, in simple terms, a tactic used to achive a political goal, and declaring war on a tactic is just stupid.

We are being lied to when we are told that the terrorists are simply jealous because we're the richest and freest country in the world. The U.N. Human Development Index ranks countries with a formula that includes standard of living, etc. The U.S. for many years has been somewhere around number EIGHT, and the 7 countries ranked higher are not being attacked by al-Qaeda.

The REAL (political) issue is that we have, for so long, angered the people of the Middle East by backing Israel no matter how many U.N. resolutions they violate in grabbing land away from the Palestinians. And showing favoritism for not applying sanctions to Israel for developing nukes, but not signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or allowing inspections. Although the lowly foot soldiers often aren't motivated by politics, their leaders are.

I mention these things because Hillary is one of the biggest pro-Israel supporters, and is rewarded for it with lots of Israel's lobby money. If Hillary is elected, we will make no progress against anti-American terrorism because she won't change a thing. She will just continue the status quo of calling everyone who disagrees with Israeli/U.S. hegemony a terrorist who needs to be killed. If a country speaks out against us, label them a terrorist group, and give our military a license to kill them. This only continues the tit-for-tat. America should never have been pulled into a tit-for-tat in the first place, as you will never win by stooping to the level of the terrorists.

Whoever wins this presidency will have to figure out how to win our friendships back with the mainstream Muslims all over the Middle East, because only they can best rein in their extremists. But don't look to Hillary to do this. The only ones who talk sense regarding these important issues are Biden, Kucinich and Gravel.

Attacking Clinton

Thu, 27 Sep 2007 19:05:54 GMT

Bushies old boys network has done enough damage to this country. I would LOVE to see a women in office. I think Hillary has the backbone to stand up to the republicans BS and I think her agenda will promote not only womens' rights but peoples rights and not just continue to spend all our money on WAR!!! Women have been running American households for years (women write 7 out of 10 checks written in the US, 90% of daughters take care of their aging parents compared to 10% of sons and women have had the burden of caring for their children, housework and holding down full-time jobs for decades). It's the women who many times "talk men down" when they are being irrational about their work, their children, and household purchases. I'm ready for a women in the White House!!!

Attacking Clinton

that dude, from Washington, D.C — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 19:13:59 GMT

I don't understand how anyone can't like Obama. He is the only one that is saying repeatedly what needs to be done as a whole to help the country in it's entirety. WE MUST STOP THE HIPOCRACY WITHIN OUR POLITICS. If you want a better nation...then help the poorest people. We must come together to drive this nation in the right direction to attain success. He doesn't duck questions, u ask him a question...he answers it. If you try to ask one of those "trick" questions that he was being asked during the debate. He explains his answer first, then tells you how he feels about it. We NEED HONESTY IN THE WHITE HOUSE. That is all that people want in this country, lead by example, and don't insult our intelligence. Don't tell us what we want to hear, tell us what we need to know. Obama does this, and if you can not see it, then you are simply not listening to the man speak.

If Obama was elected...the world would change. We all know this. The people of the Middle East would look at America in a whole new light. They would be alot more willing to sit down and talk with us. We as Americans are very arrogant and condescending when it comes to other countries. Why not have a president who is strong, yet humble to lead us. If you don't vote for Obama...you have lost your mind. It's time for a change...old white (republican)men have been running this nation for a long time, it's gotten us nowhere (except for CLinton). Listen to your common sense, arent you tired of the same old song and dance...vote for Obama...please people

Attacking Clinton

Thu, 27 Sep 2007 19:18:02 GMT

RJ-

You seem quite informed (I'm laughing). At least when Clinton lied, no one died. You seem like the type of person who doesn't ACTUALLY know anything but likes to PUSH your republican views upon anyone who isn't rude enough to tell you to SHUT UP. Don't tell me who to or not to vote for. That isn't your right or your place. If you want to hear from people in the military why don't you educate yourself and read this article from 7 soldiers about their experience in Iraq (2 of whom are now dead and one of who was seriously injured). This article definately didn't get the run of publicity that the Petraus report did but it wasn't pro-administration so that doesn't suprise me. Over 90% of the soliders who are dying and in the thick of the IRAQ war are non-commissioned officers. When is the last time you heard of a General being killed in IRAQ...........to my knowledge never!!!
The War as We Saw It

By BUDDHIKA JAYAMAHA, WESLEY D. SMITH, JEREMY ROEBUCK, OMAR MORA, EDWARD SANDMEIER, YANCE T. GRAY and JEREMY A. MURPHY
Published: August 19, 2007
New York Times
Baghdad

Enlarge This Image

Paul Hoppe
Related
2 G.I.’s, Skeptical but Loyal, Die in a Truck Crash in Iraq (Sept. 13)
VIEWED from Iraq at the tail end of a 15-month deployment, the political debate in Washington is indeed surreal. Counterinsurgency is, by definition, a competition between insurgents and counterinsurgents for the control and support of a population. To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day. (Obviously, these are our personal views and should not be seen as official within our chain of command.)
The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework. Yes, we are militarily superior, but our successes are offset by failures elsewhere. What soldiers call the “battle space” remains the same, with changes only at the margins. It is crowded with actors who do not fit neatly into boxes: Sunni extremists, Al Qaeda terrorists, Shiite militiamen, criminals and armed tribes. This situation is made more complex by the questionable loyalties and Janus-faced role of the Iraqi police and Iraqi Army, which have been trained and armed at United States taxpayers’ expense.
A few nights ago, for example, we witnessed the death of one American soldier and the critical wounding of two others when a lethal armor-piercing explosive was detonated between an Iraqi Army checkpoint and a police one. Local Iraqis readily testified to American investigators that Iraqi police and Army officers escorted the triggermen and helped plant the bomb. These civilians highlighted their own predicament: had they informed the Americans of the bomb before the incident, the Iraqi Army, the police or the local Shiite militia would have killed their families.
As many grunts will tell you, this is a near-routine event. Reports that a majority of Iraqi Army commanders are now reliable partners can be considered only misleading rhetoric. The truth is that battalion commanders, even if well meaning, have little to no influence over the thousands of obstinate men under them, in an incoherent chain of command, who are really loyal only to their militias.
Similarly, Sunnis, who have been underrepresented in the new Iraqi armed forces, now find themselves forming militias, sometimes with our tacit support. Sunnis recognize that the best guarantee they may have against Shiite militias and the Shiite-dominated government is to form their own armed bands. We arm them to aid in our fight against Al Qaeda.
However, while creating proxies is essential in winning a counterinsurgency, it requires that the proxies are loyal to the center that we claim to support. Armed Sunni tribes have indeed become effective surrogates, but the enduring question is where their loyalties would lie in our absence. The Iraqi government finds itself working at cross purposes with us on this issue because it is justifiably fearful that Sunni militias will turn on it should the Americans leave.
In short, we operate in a bewildering context of determined enemies and questionable allies, one where the balance of forces on the ground remains entirely unclear. (In the course of writing this article, this fact became all too clear: one of us, Staff Sergeant Murphy, an Army Ranger and reconnaissance team leader, was shot in the head during a “time-sensitive target acquisition mission” on Aug. 12; he is expected to survive and is being flown to a military hospital in the United States.) While we have the will and the resources to fight in this context, we are effectively hamstrung because realities on the ground require measures we will always refuse — namely, the widespread use of lethal and brutal force.
Page 2 of 2)
Given the situation, it is important not to assess security from an American-centered perspective. The ability of, say, American observers to safely walk down the streets of formerly violent towns is not a resounding indicator of security. What matters is the experience of the local citizenry and the future of our counterinsurgency. When we take this view, we see that a vast majority of Iraqis feel increasingly insecure and view us as an occupation force that has failed to produce normalcy after four years and is increasingly unlikely to do so as we continue to arm each warring side.

Related
2 G.I.’s, Skeptical but Loyal, Die in a Truck Crash in Iraq (Sept. 13)
Coupling our military strategy to an insistence that the Iraqis meet political benchmarks for reconciliation is also unhelpful. The morass in the government has fueled impatience and confusion while providing no semblance of security to average Iraqis. Leaders are far from arriving at a lasting political settlement. This should not be surprising, since a lasting political solution will not be possible while the military situation remains in constant flux.
The Iraqi government is run by the main coalition partners of the Shiite-dominated United Iraqi Alliance, with Kurds as minority members. The Shiite clerical establishment formed the alliance to make sure its people did not succumb to the same mistake as in 1920: rebelling against the occupying Western force (then the British) and losing what they believed was their inherent right to rule Iraq as the majority. The qualified and reluctant welcome we received from the Shiites since the invasion has to be seen in that historical context. They saw in us something useful for the moment.
Now that moment is passing, as the Shiites have achieved what they believe is rightfully theirs. Their next task is to figure out how best to consolidate the gains, because reconciliation without consolidation risks losing it all. Washington’s insistence that the Iraqis correct the three gravest mistakes we made — de-Baathification, the dismantling of the Iraqi Army and the creation of a loose federalist system of government — places us at cross purposes with the government we have committed to support.
Political reconciliation in Iraq will occur, but not at our insistence or in ways that meet our benchmarks. It will happen on Iraqi terms when the reality on the battlefield is congruent with that in the political sphere. There will be no magnanimous solutions that please every party the way we expect, and there will be winners and losers. The choice we have left is to decide which side we will take. Trying to please every party in the conflict — as we do now — will only ensure we are hated by all in the long run.
At the same time, the most important front in the counterinsurgency, improving basic social and economic conditions, is the one on which we have failed most miserably. Two million Iraqis are in refugee camps in bordering countries. Close to two million more are internally displaced and now fill many urban slums. Cities lack regular electricity, telephone services and sanitation. “Lucky” Iraqis live in gated communities barricaded with concrete blast walls that provide them with a sense of communal claustrophobia rather than any sense of security we would consider normal.
In a lawless environment where men with guns rule the streets, engaging in the banalities of life has become a death-defying act. Four years into our occupation, we have failed on every promise, while we have substituted Baath Party tyranny with a tyranny of Islamist, militia and criminal violence. When the primary preoccupation of average Iraqis is when and how they are likely to be killed, we can hardly feel smug as we hand out care packages. As an Iraqi man told us a few days ago with deep resignation, “We need security, not free food.”
In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are — an army of occupation — and force our withdrawal.
Until that happens, it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit. This suggestion is not meant to be defeatist, but rather to highlight our pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends without recognizing the incongruities.
We need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through.

Attacking Clinton

nuanced — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 19:39:44 GMT

Gravel was right about the Iran vote.

Russert was way out of line with a (Christian) religious test for political office. Totally and unquestionably unconstitutional.

Attacking Clinton

Stacy Richardson, Westlake Village, Ca. — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 21:29:24 GMT

This comment is directed to Chris Mathews and Tim Russert. I felt your questioning of Hillary Clinton was shameful and fully intended to embarrass. These debates are about politics, intelligence, stature, ideas and goals. Many of Tim's questions to all the candidates were inapproriate. I felt we couldn,t get a real take on any of their ideas. The process was
confusing and to scattered to obtain thorough ideas.
Mrs. Clinton was addressed fewer times than the other candiddates and with stupid questions. Chris Mathews showed his true sexist colors with his tirad against Mrs. Clinton. I found it unbelievable in todays world that we still have such small minded people and a reporter who would present such a biased platform. I was ashamed of both smug men. It is apparent that these men are living in the dark ages.

Attacking Clinton

Gwen, Whitehall, PA — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 02:02:54 GMT

Hillary handled the criticism like a head of state. Hmm, has a nice ring.

Attacking Clinton

gelen elen — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 03:12:01 GMT

How about a Clinton-Biden ticket? AND, how intolerant can this nation be that we can't accept a strong female leader? Israel, England, India, etc.... have excelled with a female at the helm. We seem to want to share our 'freedom' value with Iraq but can't handle an opinion if it differs from our own and heaven forbid it come from the mouth of a woman ! !

Attacking Clinton

Robby — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 04:05:07 GMT

Hillary can not answer a simple question, it's difficult to get a bead on this candidate because she's so evasive. She must be an attorney.

Attacking Clinton

Creampuff — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 07:10:50 GMT

If anyone really believes that the top-tier candidates are going to do anything to change America they're sadly mistaken. They all say what they think the people want to hear, except for Barack Obama on ocassion. Tom Tancredo is a level-headed, down-to-earth candidate that truly IS wanting to change America for the better. He believes in the American people and continues to fight for ALL Americans, not just certain groups at the time it's right for his campaign. It's just too bad that the media continues to show its bias against him. He's a man of truth and dignity and a wonderful role model for America.

Attacking Clinton

Kitty, New York — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 21:55:12 GMT

Chris Matthews seems to have lost all objectivity when it comes to Hillary Clinton. He constantly slams her in and underhanded kind of way and even recently discredited herd for her laugh. I used to love to watch Chris, but I no longer find him a fair or credible commentator or pundit.

Attacking Clinton

helen travers, edgewater,nj — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:43:49 GMT

chris Matthews was disgraceful last nite. His comments were low and demeaning. if he does not like Hilary tell him not to vote for her. Our family will never tune him in again.

Attacking Clinton

helen travers, edgewater,nj — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:43:54 GMT

chris Matthews was disgraceful last nite. His comments were low and demeaning. if he does not like Hilary tell him not to vote for her. Our family will never tune him in again.

Attacking Clinton

fred sarciaux--palmdale,ca. — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 23:38:54 GMT

I don't believe Hillary Clinton is a hawk, she is just being logical. I know she will see that the troops are home right away and will leave enough to protect our people and interests. What is hard for me to understand is the continued attackes by Chris Matthews? are you sure he shouldn't be working for Fox